I am very happy for them that they were able to sty close/intimate and rely on each other and their family for support o that they could get to a point where thy were ready for another child.

There's a LOT of ignorance on this thread.

I think it's because the murders occurred in October.

What is this "I hope the baby is not for October" ... October babies ROCK and RULE the world.

Anonymous wrote:My neighbor got pregant when her 2-year-old daughter was in the final stages of a brain tumor. She was 4 months pregnant when her daughter passed away. While I can't imagine wanting to have sex while going through a traumatic experience (death of a child, terminal illness of a child, etc), I don't think anyone can say for sure how they would react until it happens to them.

Maybe she was hoping that she could use the stem cells from the baby's umbilical cord for her 2 year old DD's tumor.

I think it's beautiful. My only thoughts are loving toward two people who deserve to continue to know and give love in this lifetime. Any other response is beyond my comprehension.

If the baby was unplanned, do you expect her to abort this new child, because she is still grieving? Grieving does not mean you must be celibate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has changed my opinion of her.

You are creepy.

I just thought she would have been more affected by the tragedy.

SHE WAS and IS. A new child doesn't change that.

Anonymous wrote:Ummkay. Sex is only for fun and 'getting randy'. Unless you are feeling completely whole, lighthearted and not a care in the world, then sex is not to be considered.

In my marriage, which I don't think is that unique, Dh and I have sought comfort in each other in the form of physical contact and intimacy (aka sex) during times of grief and stress. It can be healing and bring you closer. Perhaps not everyone feels this way, but who is anyone to judge what goes on in another marriage?

Exactly! Sex isn't always a kinky, fun fest. And many, many people don't think about contraceptives or making babies. We had a tragedy in our family (not the death of a child), and my husband and I were very close and intimate in the months after. When you truly love someone, often times comfort and compassion leads to sex. Not every tragedy divides and separates spouses. Turning to each other can be one of the most healing things. I am with a PP, in the belief that their love for each other, ultimately led to a child; without an ulterior motives.

Ummkay. Sex is only for fun and 'getting randy'. Unless you are feeling completely whole, lighthearted and not a care in the world, then sex is not to be considered.

In my marriage, which I don't think is that unique, Dh and I have sought comfort in each other in the form of physical contact and intimacy (aka sex) during times of grief and stress. It can be healing and bring you closer. Perhaps not everyone feels this way, but who is anyone to judge what goes on in another marriage?

If it was 2 years later I wouldnt think twice about it.
I just can't believe she was into getting randy within just a couple of months after the brutal murders of her children.

She must be divorced from her feelings or avoiding them.

Also, I don't blame her at all for leaving her kids with a nanny. I am disgusted by people who blame her for that. However I would think she would maybe blame herself as most people in her situation do. I would think that alone would make her not want to have so much sex.

Please Jeff, intervene here and assure the rest of us that there is only one horribly trolling critic who has the surreal gall to judge what this family has been through, what they could have done to prevent it, and what is the appropriate response over the subsequent months and years. Because if there are multiple DCUMs with such a grotesque lack of empathy, I just want to weep. To me the fact that any members of this family are capable of existing outside a heavily medicated fetal position is a sign of amazing human spirit and endurance. I hope they find peace and, yes, happiness in whatever way they can, and I'd have to imagine another child will be deeply loved.

Wow I can't believe people are criticizing this poor woman. Cold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Elizabeth and John Edwards had children after their first child died. Same with John Travolta and his wife.

I think though in both cases it was an attempt to keep a marriage from imploding from the tragedy. I know Travolta's hasn't but that who knows with CoS what kind of crazy control it has over their marriage--since they're both CoS. But I digress. Having kids to save your marriage after a tragic death of a child rarely works--the lingering anger and blame just is too much...but I hope it does work for them.

So let me get this right, parents who lose a child should not have any more children because otherwise nit wits like the two of you will think that they are trying to replace their dead child OR that they are trying to save their marriage. Interesting.

You assume that we are wrong. Children die and she is immediately pregnant? You are telling me they always planned to have a fourth and, despite the deaths, continued with this plan. I feel like that option maybe more disturbing than the one I proposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has changed my opinion of her.

You are creepy.

I just thought she would have been more affected by the tragedy.

Maybe the tragedy affected her to have more children. It is human nature to want offspring to carry on the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has changed my opinion of her.

You are creepy.

I just thought she would have been more affected by the tragedy.